From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: More tzdb fun: POSIXRULES is being deprecated upstream
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2020 13:05:41 -0400
Message-ID: <1554171.1592499941@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+TgmobYz3UGPwc2pzTjwV9cADNQGz4XVMG0HT==qy4120=SgQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1390.1562258309@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<1452646.1592417333@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<1525464.1592454364@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<CA+TgmobYz3UGPwc2pzTjwV9cADNQGz4XVMG0HT==qy4120=SgQ@mail.gmail.com>
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> It's a little confusing, though, that you documented it as Mm.n.d but
> then in the text the order of explanation is d then m then n. Maybe
> switch the text around so the order matches, or even use something
> like Mmonth.occurrence.day.
Yeah, I struggled with that text for a bit. It doesn't seem to make sense
to explain that n means the n'th occurrence of a particular d value before
we've explained what d is, so explaining the fields in their syntactic
order seems like a loser. But we could describe m first without that
problem.
Not sure about replacing the m/n/d notation --- that's straight out of
POSIX, so inventing our own terminology might just confuse people who
do know the spec.
regards, tom lane
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, robertmhaas@gmail.com, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: More tzdb fun: POSIXRULES is being deprecated upstream
In-Reply-To: <1554171.1592499941@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox